Didn't Facebook do this years and years ago?<p>Yes, 2013: <a href="https://mashable.com/archive/facebook-ads-photo#ggcKnNfAUaqy" rel="nofollow">https://mashable.com/archive/facebook-ads-photo#ggcKnNfAUaqy</a><p>> According to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:<p>> You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.<p>So it's not new. If you don't want this, delete your facebook account: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/privacy/dialog/delete-your-information/" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/privacy/dialog/delete-your-informat...</a>
Those are incredible terms that no one read.
I cancelled my Instagram account when they added those terms in the early 2010s. At the time it was mostly photographers reading them and closing accounts but it wasn’t exactly a secret.
Speak for yourself.<p>“Few”, maybe.
"No one" does not literally mean "not a single individual" in common English parlance, something that everyone (see what I did there?) here understands.
I mean, I read them, but just goes to show the majority of people skipped this important reading.<p>If anyone actually read them it's typically a unlimited unrestricted pipe of data they can use for anything.
No one reads the terms and conditions. I went to a resort and read the T&C they made you sign to sign in and was told I was the only person in months who had actually done so.<p>And even I have mostly given up on the website T&C because most of them are so lengthy, a lot like I've given up on disabling javascript since the modern web frequently won't even render anything if you disable it.
99% of people don't read terms and condition.
> If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.<p>To be fair, if they actually honor this promise, and if it means what it sounds like in plain English -- i.e. that if you only posted your photo for friends, only friends can ever see it even if FB uses it for advertising -- that is a halfway decent mitigation of the issue. Not ideal, but then again, you're not paying for FB, so what did you really expect?
> <i>If you don't want this, delete your facebook account</i><p>What? I thought I could just paste a paragraph of all-caps legalese to my profile, and it would solve this!
[dead]
Many years ago (back when Facebook still had sidebar ads), my sister was presented with a dating ad for "Hot Christian Singles" accompanied by a photo of our brother.<p>It was hilarious, but also mind-boggling. In what scenario <i>would</i> pulling in a friend's profile photo create a useful ad?
Just stop using that cursed website
It really is that simple. “Users of company with a long track record of unethical behavior surprised at the company’s latest unethical business decision.”<p>I know it’s not easy for some to stop using their platform for some reason or another. That’s the point. When you use their product not because they are the best choice in a free market with options, but when you use it because you have to. Just don’t surprised when FB keeps pushing the limits.
This shouldn't really be surprising. It's very similar to what they did ~1.5 year ago when they started to use users' photos to promote Meta AI<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42615538">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42615538</a>
Sometimes it seems like Black Mirror screenwriters work at Meta as a side hustle.
Is Meta abusing its users a problem? Yes. Does the TOS allow for it? Yes. Can people decide to just create a shell account and not actually participate? Sure.<p>One of the real insidious problems with Instagram and to some extent Facebook is that they provide a free, low friction way for business to communicate with current or potential customers. As a result many small businesses use Instagram as replacement for a public facing website and perhaps a blog or email newsletter. Many small business in my region depend on Instagram for this purpose, its nearly universal. It helps keep you stuck in Instagram so that you can see a business' hours, menu, or special events. I guess a shell account is the answer but you're still going to have to navigate the skinner box feed.
Every time I try to create a shell account, it gets banned with no reason given. Even if it's just to follow a few influencer accounts.
We need a Nitter for Instagram.
If the only way to interact with a business is via Facebook or Instagram, I don't interact with the business.<p>Unfortunately this is more of a problem for me than it is for them. I hope my position on this becomes more popular over time so that everyone can stop using spy- and adware.
You can't create shell account on fb/meta anymore. They will ask to turn on camera and rotate your head.
Print out a face of someone on Facebook and use that?
U a manequin head. Add hair and moles. It mightbtake more than one try but it works.
Eventually, people who make shell accounts will be declared creepy child predators, but that isn't the case, yet.
<a href="https://xcancel.com/venturetwins/status/2071277885646868536" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/venturetwins/status/2071277885646868536</a>
IG users were the proverbial product on this free-to-partake vanity fair since its inception.
I feel like having an account on a Meta site is today’s equivalent of being a smoker.
Why? Because they can, and they will.<p>Leaving these services looks difficult or impossible, until you do it, and the world just keeps spinning.
I actually find this incredible, since this highlights how desperate they are to advertise these glasses
Comment on that thread:<p>> This seems entirely counter-productive and creepy.<p>Apt description of Instagram in general.
When you don't pay for the product... YOU are the product.
Something similar happened to me a few years ago. my photo was used in an ad, making it look like I was selling stuff and promoting a page I’d never even clicked on... absolutely mind-blowing....
Ten years ago maybe this causes outrage, but I'm not sure anyone cares in 2026 including potential customers.
Is there actual proof that they are doing this. Theres not much to go on in the tweet.
Besides the proof in the screenshot? What more do you want?<p>Do you think this user is faking it?
Yes people frequently fake screenshots on social media. I'd want either a screenshot from a credible person, reporting from a journalist, trusted blogger, company statement etc.
I'm not a journalist, but I don't think a reporter would go much further than "one user said...".<p>There is no need for fact checking an individual source, other than to verify the reporting is accurately representing what they said.
[dead]
yes, it happened to me recently.<p>The photo wasn't mine, but showed a profile photo of one of my facebook friends, and it had the glasses and said "On my way!"
And they have a history of doing this. And their privacy/ToS allows it.
"I'm uncomfortable"<p>Should have read the terms and conditions
The XKCD for this exact scenario is 14 years old.<p><a href="https://xkcd.com/1150/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1150/</a>
Kind of a stretch, these days can't imagine anyone that views instagram as a place to store their cherished photos also.
Yeah, and then the charging businesses start selling your stuff anyway. So really, it's the comic creator, who is naive.
Some reason that strip doesn't load for me.
I don't know what's worse - this, or all the ads/commercials for Meta Glasses featuring Kylie Jenner, like this: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yYQO8exxaU" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yYQO8exxaU</a>
why are people using these products exactly?<p>signing away their rights to their photos? making psychopaths filthy rich?<p>if the surveillance glasses are coming, these people will also have signed away the commons, which are not theirs to
give away
<a href="https://xcancel.com/venturetwins/status/2071277885646868536" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/venturetwins/status/2071277885646868536</a>
i edited it to the same url before opening as i usually do for twitter urls so that i can see the full conversation without being logged into twitter.<p>for some reason the url rewrote iteself to this: <a href="https://themenspiegel.click/c/de/52_merzchrupalla/?method=pop&regform=1&on=Levorelio&icid=wh4e8rgkl7ut4mfjjnl4k6aa&traff=05ac29cc-39dc-44b6-b190-e0f4ba78e428&cmp=d030a405-eead-41cd-a478-ee6025b83018" rel="nofollow">https://themenspiegel.click/c/de/52_merzchrupalla/?method=po...</a><p>which is a german language scam site. i have no explanation how this happened, whether it is xcancel.com doing this or something loaded from twitter that caused xcancel to do this. never seen anythin like it before, would like to know more.<p>btw any further reloads of the xcancel url to that tweet totally work as expected.
Throwing an additional anecdote into the bucket, this did not happen for me. Any chance you have a dodgy extension installed?
Doubt. xcancel.com does not even seem to have any advertisements at all, when I disable ublock. Site seems remarkable clean, no thirdparty connections apart from a cdn. Sure you didn't type cancelx.com? Cause there something shady is going on. Otherwise, I would strongly suggest checking your extensions or system for malware.
Sure you didn't just make a typo and hit a squatted domain?
I mean, what would you expect from company with morality of tobacco and slot machines producer? This is the least evil they are doing.<p>This thing resurface from time to time. It's the small text you never read. In this case, small part in ridiculously and intentionally big eula.
[dead]